Department of Ultrasound, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2022;82(2):157-168. doi: 10.3233/CH-221456.
This study was performed to investigate the accuracy of conventional ultrasound (US), contrast-enhanced US (CEUS), and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) in assessing the size of breast cancer.
In total, 49 breast cancer lesions of 48 patients were included in this study. The inclusion criteria were the performance of total mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery for treatment of breast cancer in our hospital from January 2017 to December 2020 with complete pathological results, as well as the performance of conventional US, CEUS, and DCE-MRI examinations with complete results. The exclusion criteria were non-mass breast cancer shown on conventional US or DCE-MRI, including that found on CEUS with no boundary with surrounding tissues and no confirmed tumor scope; a tumor too large to be completely displayed in the US section, thus affecting the measurement results; the presence of two nodules in the same breast that were too close to each other to be distinguished by any of the three imaging methods; and treatment with preoperative chemotherapy. Preoperative conventional US, CEUS, and DCE-MRI examinations were performed. The postoperative pathological results were taken as the gold standard. The lesion size was represented by its maximum diameter. The accuracy, overestimation, and underestimation rates of conventional US, CEUS, and DCE-MRI were compared.
The maximum lesion diameter on US, CEUS, DCE-MRI and pathology were 1.62±0.63 cm (range, 0.6-3.5 cm), 2.05±0.75 cm (range, 1.0-4.0 cm), 1.99±0.74 cm (range, 0.7-4.2 cm) and 1.92±0.83 cm (range, 0.5-4.0 cm), respectively. The lesion size on US was significantly smaller than that of postoperative pathological tissue (P < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference between the CEUS or DCE-MRI results and the pathological results. The underestimation rate of conventional US (55.1%, 27/49) was significantly higher than that of CEUS (20.4%, 10/49) and DCE-MRI (24.5%, 12/49) (P < 0.001 and P = 0.002, respectively). There was no significant difference in the accuracy of CEUS (36.7%, 18/49) and DCE-MRI (34.7%, 17/49) compared with conventional US (26.5%, 13/49); however, the accuracy of both groups tended to be higher than that of conventional US. The overestimation rate of CEUS (42.9%, 21/49) and DCE-MRI (40.8%, 20/49) was significantly higher than that of conventional US (18.4%, 9/49) (P = 0.001 and P = 0.015, respectively).
CEUS and DCE-MRI show similar performance when evaluating the size of breast cancer. However, CEUS is more convenient, has a shorter operation time, and has fewer restrictions on its use. Notably, conventional US is more prone to underestimate the size of lesions, whereas CEUS and DCE-MRI are more prone to overestimate the size.
本研究旨在探讨常规超声(US)、超声造影(CEUS)和动态对比增强磁共振成像(DCE-MRI)在评估乳腺癌大小方面的准确性。
本研究纳入了 48 例患者的 49 个乳腺癌病灶。纳入标准为:2017 年 1 月至 2020 年 12 月在我院行全乳切除术或保乳术治疗乳腺癌,且病理结果完整;同时行常规 US、CEUS 和 DCE-MRI 检查,结果完整。排除标准为:常规 US 或 DCE-MRI 显示非肿块型乳腺癌,包括 CEUS 显示边界与周围组织无明显分界且无明确肿瘤范围的病例;肿瘤过大,US 切面无法完全显示,影响测量结果的病例;同一乳房内有两个相邻的结节,无法通过任何三种成像方法区分的病例;以及术前接受化疗的病例。术前均行常规 US、CEUS 和 DCE-MRI 检查。以术后病理结果为金标准。病灶大小以最大直径表示。比较常规 US、CEUS 和 DCE-MRI 的准确性、高估率和低估率。
US、CEUS、DCE-MRI 和术后病理组织测量的病灶最大直径分别为 1.62±0.63 cm(范围,0.6-3.5 cm)、2.05±0.75 cm(范围,1.0-4.0 cm)、1.99±0.74 cm(范围,0.7-4.2 cm)和 1.92±0.83 cm(范围,0.5-4.0 cm)。US 测量的病灶大小明显小于术后病理组织(P<0.05)。然而,CEUS 和 DCE-MRI 结果与病理结果之间无显著差异。常规 US 的低估率(55.1%,27/49)明显高于 CEUS(20.4%,10/49)和 DCE-MRI(24.5%,12/49)(P<0.001 和 P=0.002)。CEUS(36.7%,18/49)和 DCE-MRI(34.7%,17/49)的准确性与常规 US(26.5%,13/49)相比无显著差异,但这两组的准确性均有高于常规 US 的趋势。CEUS(42.9%,21/49)和 DCE-MRI(40.8%,20/49)的高估率明显高于常规 US(18.4%,9/49)(P=0.001 和 P=0.015)。
CEUS 和 DCE-MRI 在评估乳腺癌大小方面表现相似。然而,CEUS 更方便,操作时间更短,且使用限制更少。值得注意的是,常规 US 更倾向于低估病灶大小,而 CEUS 和 DCE-MRI 更倾向于高估病灶大小。